Perception or Reality

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Do you make calls as you want, or, as others here do, as your assignor wants?

I take it you always call the 12-6 in the dirt that crosses the zone a strike? The inside pitch that nicks the corner but the catcher misses - you've got a strike? The crossed-up pitch that hits the outside corner but the catcher lunges for? All strikes? If so, good for you. If not, you obviously do care what someone else thinks; and make sure you keep the beers cold - you'll sell more that way.

Look, you asked for an honest answer, and I gave you one. I call my strike zone the same way I have for 26 years now, and it hasn't changed a smidgen, despite all the high strike crap that has been pushed down our throats. Sure, it gets slightly expanded a little for 18A or 18 Rookie type leagues, where most of the players haven't picked up a bat since Little League. But at the higher levels, with former big league and college players all over the place, my zone is polished and precisely where I want it called, not where anyone else dictates, assignors included. I have never had any assignor ignorant enough to try to tell me how to call ball. When I quit playing ball in 1985, and started umpiring, it all came very naturally to me, and didn't need outside help.

I very rarely receive any complaints about the zone I call, so it must be okay. I do get occasional complaints about the pitch call, but that is because I missed it, based on MY zone that people get used to in the first inning. If a catcher is trying to fool me into calling a inside pitch by pulling his mitt back to the corner, but forgets to actually catch the ball, no friggin way is he getting a strike. But if the pitch actually nips MY corner, it matters not at all to me if he catches the ball or not. A strike is a strike. If the 12-6 curve (and I've called Zito's back when it was better, and Silva and Harang had pretty good ones back then as well IIRC) doesn't pass through the bottom of MY zone, then it isn't a strike. If the curve is pretty enough, nobody will complain on strike calls just because the catcher doesn't catch them properly. A 12-6 curve that hits the dirt is the catcher's fault. It's his job to make his pitcher look good, not mine.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Look, you asked for an honest answer, and I gave you one. I call my strike zone the same way I have for 26 years now, and it hasn't changed a smidgen, despite all the high strike crap that has been pushed down our throats. Sure, it gets slightly expanded a little for 18A or 18 Rookie type leagues, where most of the players haven't picked up a bat since Little League. But at the higher levels, with former big league and college players all over the place, my zone is polished and precisely where I want it called, not where anyone else dictates, assignors included. I have never had any assignor ignorant enough to try to tell me how to call ball. When I quit playing ball in 1985, and started umpiring, it all came very naturally to me, and didn't need outside help.

I very rarely receive any complaints about the zone I call, so it must be okay. I do get occasional complaints about the pitch call, but that is because I missed it, based on MY zone that people get used to in the first inning. If a catcher is trying to fool me into calling a inside pitch by pulling his mitt back to the corner, but forgets to actually catch the ball, no friggin way is he getting a strike. But if the pitch actually nips MY corner, it matters not at all to me if he catches the ball or not. A strike is a strike. If the 12-6 curve (and I've called Zito's back when it was better, and Silva and Harang had pretty good ones back then as well IIRC) doesn't pass through the bottom of MY zone, then it isn't a strike. If the curve is pretty enough, nobody will complain on strike calls just because the catcher doesn't catch them properly. A 12-6 curve that hits the dirt is the catcher's fault. It's his job to make his pitcher look good, not mine.

Fair enough

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

Well,

Last night I was watching the Indians and White Sox in Chicago, and Carmona was throwing nasty stuff. Everything moved around faster than a PGA Tour player on a golf cart.

I am sure this did not get on MLB.com, but Carmona threw a pitch to Konerko that moved so much Lou Marson (I think who was the F2) who was set up outside he reached inside to catch it. Well, the pitch was just off the middle of the plate, it wasn't close to inside, and our PU rang up the strike.

Now Konerko saw where Marson's glove was, as opposed to where Marson was, and stood int he box and raised cain about the pitch. The Play-by-play man and color guy talked about how Knoerko handled it with class, and didn't show up the umpire, but complained for a long time about the pitch.

There was no false zone posted on the screen, and I wish there would have been, because it was a clear strike and should have been called. But the pitch made Marson look bad and if was borderline, it's a ball. Several CWS umpires did the same thing in Omaha, and nobody said boo.

This is all brought up to say one thing, even in MLB: If it's a clear strike, or the ball beats the fielder, and the close tag/maybe no tag is made, it's an out. It looks like an out and should be called and out.

But there are times where it looks bad, and it's still a strike or an out, and sometimes it looks bad and it isn't an out. That's why they pay good umpires not so good inflated American currency to call games, because they use good judgement on plays like this and know when to make the 'expected call' and when not to.

My sentiments exactly. Sometimes ya just gotta umpire.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

The other calls, neighborhood plays particularly, are routinely challenged by excellent umpires. It is refreshing to see the best professional and collegiate umpires not ignoring them any more. This past CWS had quite a few plays that were called as they are supposed to, not as fans think they should be.

IMO, you are missing the point. The MAIN reason Professionals and college umpires are NOT calling the neighborhood and the expected call is not because they do not want to or being an excellent umpire etc.

the reason is because of replay. Plain and Simple. a close play on ESPN is shown over and over and over again using a gazillion angles and Super Slo mo. Same with the college games that are on TV.

If this OP were posted "back in the day" the call would be out - PERIOD. You mean to tell me the PROS/D1 college umpires do not want outs if they can get them.

The neighborhood / expected call were around a LOOONG LOOONG time and it was the same for both teams. There used to be an old adage - When you are OUT you are OUT.

just because things change etc. doesn't necessarily translate into a better game.

In the play in question, F3 had his glove down, Plenty of time to get the runner. One of the reasons for the expected call was "why risk injury when there is no need to"

Since I am NOT on TV etc. I still subscribe to the "neighborhood" / phatom tag / expected call theories. I grew up with these calls and NO-ONE thought "twice" about it. We did not think that the umpires were cheating / had lack of Cijonies / etc. It was the way WE wanted the game to be called. It was the same for both teams so no-one had an unfair advantage over another.

Pete Booth

[BigUmp56]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;782210]

IMO, you are missing the point. The MAIN reason Professionals and college umpires are NOT calling the neighborhood and the expected call is not because they do not want to or being an excellent umpire etc.

the reason is because of replay. Plain and Simple. a close play on ESPN is shown over and over and over again using a gazillion angles and Super Slo mo. Same with the college games that are on TV.

If this OP were posted "back in the day" the call would be out - PERIOD. You mean to tell me the PROS/D1 college umpires do not want outs if they can get them.

The neighborhood / expected call were around a LOOONG LOOONG time and it was the same for both teams. There used to be an old adage - When you are OUT you are OUT.

just because things change etc. doesn't necessarily translate into a better game.

In the play in question, F3 had his glove down, Plenty of time to get the runner. One of the reasons for the expected call was "why risk injury when there is no need to"

Since I am NOT on TV etc. I still subscribe to the "neighborhood" / phatom tag / expected call theories. I grew up with these calls and NO-ONE thought "twice" about it. We did not think that the umpires were cheating / had lack of Cijonies / etc. It was the way WE wanted the game to be called. It was the same for both teams so no-one had an unfair advantage over another.

Pete Booth

Well said! I'm all for getting the call right, but there are excepted traditions in this game that are being changed based on what the average FAN wants to see. The changes in philosophy are not based on what baseball people want. If you were to poll 100 professional and 100 collegiate baseball players about the phantom DP, I would guess you'd find the vast majority of them are in favor of having it called the way it has been for years. They want to get out of the game with two primary goals acheived. They want a victory for their team, and they want to leave the field un-injured. Requiring a fielder to receive the ball right on top of the bag with a hard sliding runner bearing down on him is counter intuitive to one of those goals. The same can be said on a tag play where the ball beats the runner. There's no reason to require a fielder to leave his hand and arm exposed to being spiked while waiting for a runner to slide right into it.


Tim.

[MikeStrybel]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;782210]

IMO, you are missing the point. The MAIN reason Professionals and college umpires are NOT calling the neighborhood and the expected call is not because they do not want to or being an excellent umpire etc.

the reason is because of replay. Plain and Simple. a close play on ESPN is shown over and over and over again using a gazillion angles and Super Slo mo. Same with the college games that are on TV.

If this OP were posted "back in the day" the call would be out - PERIOD. You mean to tell me the PROS/D1 college umpires do not want outs if they can get them.

The neighborhood / expected call were around a LOOONG LOOONG time and it was the same for both teams. There used to be an old adage - When you are OUT you are OUT.

just because things change etc. doesn't necessarily translate into a better game.

In the play in question, F3 had his glove down, Plenty of time to get the runner. One of the reasons for the expected call was "why risk injury when there is no need to"

Since I am NOT on TV etc. I still subscribe to the "neighborhood" / phatom tag / expected call theories. I grew up with these calls and NO-ONE thought "twice" about it. We did not think that the umpires were cheating / had lack of Cijonies / etc. It was the way WE wanted the game to be called. It was the same for both teams so no-one had an unfair advantage over another.

Pete Booth

You missed many of my posts regarding this subject. In almost every one, I have noted that television coverage is responsible for making umpires more accountable for their calls. We saw a similar change occur in umpire demeanor. It used to be acceptable for umpires to say what they felt out there, that is not the case any longer.

I have been at this for a while too, Pete. I don't speak of my experience or brag of past accomplishments. Along the way, I saw umpires who emulated the big boys and made phantom calls, MF'd those who questioned them and mailed it in when they didn't care. Thankfully, some did care and the way we are expected to officiate has evolved. If you truly believe that making the wrong call (per the rules, not what brought you less criticism) didn't create an advantage then, IMO, you are mistaken. Calls don't even out. Some umpires like to think so, but it's rarely the case.

Your statement about the expected call arriving from a player's need to avoid injury is off. Lazy/cheating players and umpires caused it to happen. When they found it wouldn't be questioned, the die was cast. Thankfully, umpire mechanics, pride and instant replay recast it.

I worked with a guy who used to say, don't polish your shoes (when he saw me shining them up), this level of ball doesn't deserve it. He would limit his hustle and reply that it was expected. I always wondered, by whom? I maintain that if the throw beats the player, the glove is on the ground in front of the base and the runner adjusts to beat it, the runner is safe. I have no problem telling a defensive coach why the guy was safe. My assignors concur.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=MikeStrybel;782373]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

If you truly believe that making the wrong call (per the rules, not what brought you less criticism) didn't create an advantage then, IMO, you are mistaken. Calls don't even out. Some umpires like to think so, but it's rarely the case.

I am not trying to change your opinion but from your responses you really do not KNOW or truly understand the definitions of the neighborhood / phantom tag / expected call theories.

They are NOT make up calls which you seem to imply.

There were excellent articles written by some of the most well reknown umpires on the subject matter. One who comes to mind was Jon Bible who used to be a frequent poster at umpire.org.

We are NOT talking about a lazy tag etc. etc.

FWIW here is the definition of the neighborhood play.

R1 - 1 out.

Ground ball RIGHT AT F6 to start the traditional 6-4-3 DP. The ball is in PLENTY of time to get R1. "back in the day" as long as F4 was in the NEAR vicinity of the bag = OUT. No need for him to hold the bag upon the sliding R1especially if you are playing by PRO rules which for all practcial purposes has no sliding restrictions like FED / NCAA.

It was that way for YEARS not just my experiences. According to you all those PRO umpires who used to call the neighborhood are no good, cheating etc.

If the throw is off or a player is lazy is a COMPLETE different story and IMO that's not what happened in the OP or at least the way I interpret it. His glove was where it should be in plenty of time to get the runner.

Like I said just because things change doesn't necessarily translate into a better game. Yes it's the "new breed" and if I was fortunate enough to be umpiring at those levels then yes I would do as the Romans but I am not.

Pete Booth

[Rich]

You know, all this talk of the neighborhood play has gotten to be quite boring.

Here's the truth, distilled into fewer than 1000 words: It's dead. Buried. Fielders at all levels are getting the bag. The really good players make it look like they're not on the bag. But with a trained umpire's eye, you can see them hold the bag for a split second.

I don't bother even thinking about the neighborhood anymore. Either the ball is with the fielder while he's in contact with the bag or it isn't. How can a coach argue with you when you tell him the fielder wasn't on the bag? That they "always get that call?" How can a coach, umpire, or assignor possibly defend that in this day and age?

I call the pivot the same at all levels from little kids up through small college and adult ball. It's easier. I don't have to make stuff up.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

You know, all this talk of the neighborhood play has gotten to be quite boring.

Here's the truth, distilled into fewer than 1000 words: It's dead. Buried. Fielders at all levels are getting the bag. The really good players make it look like they're not on the bag. But with a trained umpire's eye, you can see them hold the bag for a split second.

I don't bother even thinking about the neighborhood anymore. Either the ball is with the fielder while he's in contact with the bag or it isn't. How can a coach argue with you when you tell him the fielder wasn't on the bag? That they "always get that call?" How can a coach, umpire, or assignor possibly defend that in this day and age?

I call the pivot the same at all levels from little kids up through small college and adult ball. It's easier. I don't have to make stuff up.

Check out the "No Tag at the Plate" thread on this forum and then get back to us on what your call would have been.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Check out the "No Tag at the Plate" thread on this forum and then get back to us on what your call would have been.

Just like the curve ball that hits the dirt, it's a different play with a different "right" way to call it.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Check out the "No Tag at the Plate" thread on this forum and then get back to us on what your call would have been.

What's that have to do with a neighborhood play?

If a tag's missed at the plate, it's missed. I don't go into plays with preconceived notions.

I also don't spend a lot of time trying to see a millimeter's space between a glove or a leg. That doesn't make it an expected call -- it means that I recognize that the human eye isn't capable of discerning such and trying to do so will cause me to be wrong more often than I'm right.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

What's that have to do with a neighborhood play?

If a tag's missed at the plate, it's missed. I don't go into plays with preconceived notions.

I also don't spend a lot of time trying to see a millimeter's space between a glove or a leg. That doesn't make it an expected call -- it means that I recognize that the human eye isn't capable of discerning such and trying to do so will cause me to be wrong more often than I'm right.

It's got everything to do with sometimes making the perceived call over the real call. Since you won't come out and say it, I assume you'd call the runner safe. I, on the other hand, have no problem with the out call. It's good umpiring.

[MikeStrybel]

What? All umpire calls are perceived calls. If you worry about what fans, players and coaches percieve then it is time to contact eBay about selling your gear.

Your comment about the plate call is amiss. The plate umpire called the play because his angle showed the catcher holding onto the ball after what appeared to be enough contact with the runner. He did not have the benefit of slow motion replay. He judged the playing action and made his call, it was hardly the expected call. (sigh and roll eyes)

[MikeStrybel]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;782396][QUOTE]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I am not trying to change your opinion but from your responses you really do not KNOW or truly understand the definitions of the neighborhood / phantom tag / expected call theories.

They are NOT make up calls which you seem to imply.

There were excellent articles written by some of the most well reknown umpires on the subject matter. One who comes to mind was Jon Bible who used to be a frequent poster at umpire.org.

We are NOT talking about a lazy tag etc. etc.

FWIW here is the definition of the neighborhood play.

R1 - 1 out.

Ground ball RIGHT AT F6 to start the traditional 6-4-3 DP. The ball is in PLENTY of time to get R1. "back in the day" as long as F4 was in the NEAR vicinity of the bag = OUT. No need for him to hold the bag upon the sliding R1especially if you are playing by PRO rules which for all practcial purposes has no sliding restrictions like FED / NCAA.

It was that way for YEARS not just my experiences. According to you all those PRO umpires who used to call the neighborhood are no good, cheating etc.

If the throw is off or a player is lazy is a COMPLETE different story and IMO that's not what happened in the OP or at least the way I interpret it. His glove was where it should be in plenty of time to get the runner.

Like I said just because things change doesn't necessarily translate into a better game. Yes it's the "new breed" and if I was fortunate enough to be umpiring at those levels then yes I would do as the Romans but I am not.

Pete Booth

Wow, you win today's drama award. I remind the board that you are the person who insists that making an erroneous call doesn't put one team at a disadvantage because it all evens out. History says otherwise.

Seriously, if you want to put words in my mouth, just hold up the white flag. I do contend that making that expected call is lazy and allows one team to cheat. It also smacks of arrogance and a need for approval - be it through ratings or silence. The ghost tag of second was considered acceptable for just a short part of baseball's history. It has now all but disappeared in professional and collegiate umpiring, thankfully.

[UmpTTS43]

I love the smell of rightousness and arrogance on an off day.